The greatest power the justices have is carved into the marble of the Supreme Court Building and gilded in gold: It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.

These are the words of John Marshall, the fourth U.S. chief justice, written in 1803. His decision established forever that the Supreme Court had the right to uphold or strike down laws passed by Congress.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given this power. The Supreme Court took it in a 4-0 decision. (There were only six members on the court at the time and two were sick.)

Click to expand...

/snip

We realized they were human beings with political opinions, but we expected them to put those opinions aside.
And then came 2000 and the courts 5-4 decision that made George W. Bush the president of the United States. The decision was nakedly political. The case didnt just scar the Courts record, Jeffrey Toobin wrote in The New Yorker, it damaged the Courts honor.

Its honor has never fully recovered. Our current court is led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush in 2005 after having worked on Bushs behalf in Florida in 2000.

The signature of the Roberts Court, Toobin wrote, has been its eagerness to overturn the work of legislatures. This is hardly conservative doctrine but today, politics trumps even ideology. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law which amounted to a boon for Republicans.

Click to expand...

It looks to me like there are two separate and distinct issues to discuss. First, the SCOTUS placed themselves above the other two branches, and second, they are using said power in a corrupt fashion.

It's the job of the court to "judge" whether our leaders are following the law or not.

This decision is definitely ideological, but I don't see how it's political. This is not about influencing an election or favoring one party or the other. But it is about the central question of our time: Will we have a Constitutionally limited government or not?

Marshall was wrong. It is, instead, emphatically the province of the Legislative Branch to say what the law is.

The SCOTUS is reclaiming its honor, by the way.

Other than that, a really "meh" OP.

Click to expand...

Couldn't have been that bad, you addressed it instead of attacking me. Or are you feeling under the weather.

Click to expand...

And, true to form, you revert to trying to make it about me. Pretty transparent of you.

Your vapid efforts aside, the fact remains, people quote Justice Marshall on that "point" as though the fact that he said it somehow makes it true. It doesn't.

And the fact is, the SCOTUS runs the risk of appearing political anytime it hands down a decision. It hasn't lost any honor in the process EXCEPT when they have allowed purely partisan political inclinations to override what the Constitution actually commands.

The greatest power the justices have is carved into the marble of the Supreme Court Building and gilded in gold: It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.

These are the words of John Marshall, the fourth U.S. chief justice, written in 1803. His decision established forever that the Supreme Court had the right to uphold or strike down laws passed by Congress.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given this power. The Supreme Court took it in a 4-0 decision. (There were only six members on the court at the time and two were sick.)

Click to expand...

/snip

We realized they were human beings with political opinions, but we expected them to put those opinions aside.
And then came 2000 and the courts 5-4 decision that made George W. Bush the president of the United States. The decision was nakedly political. The case didnt just scar the Courts record, Jeffrey Toobin wrote in The New Yorker, it damaged the Courts honor.

Its honor has never fully recovered. Our current court is led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush in 2005 after having worked on Bushs behalf in Florida in 2000.

The signature of the Roberts Court, Toobin wrote, has been its eagerness to overturn the work of legislatures. This is hardly conservative doctrine but today, politics trumps even ideology. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law which amounted to a boon for Republicans.

Click to expand...

It looks to me like there are two separate and distinct issues to discuss. First, the SCOTUS placed themselves above the other two branches, and second, they are using said power in a corrupt fashion.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!